Sidney Crosby Top 5 player of all time

[Yackiberg8]

Hard to compare goalies and defenceman amongst forwards and difficult to compare forwards from different eras. IMO Ovechkin & Crosby should be slotted in the 5-10 range. Top 35 forwards all time...

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Howe
4. Richard
5. Beliveau
6. Crosby
7. Ovechkin
8. Jagr
9. Hull
10. Morenz
11. Mikita
12. Lafleur
13. Esposito
14. Messier
15. Clarke
16. Sakic
17. Yzerman
18. Trottier
19. Forsberg
20. Bossy
21. Lindsay
22. Hull Jr.
23. Selanne
24. Lalonde
25. Fedorov
26. Malkin
27. Bure
28. Lindros
29. Schmidt
30. H. Richard
31. Thornton
32. P. Kane
33. Francis
34. Dionne
35. Sundin/Modano/Kurri

I’m always curious when people put Beliveau and Richard so high what the reasoning is.

Care to explain their case over the group you have behind them?

 

[bobholly39]

I’m always curious when people put Beliveau and Richard so high what the reasoning is.

Care to explain their case over the group you have behind them?

Playoff heroics? Career longevity/accomplishments? Having Richard and Beliveau so high is the farthest thing from controversial.

I know there's a lot of people who say "modern hockey 4tw - today's players = bionic robots" and that crowd usually dismisses anything from before the 1970s. But assuming you're not part of that group - Beliveau/Richard so high kinda speaks for itself.

 

[Yackiberg8]

Playoff heroics? Career longevity/accomplishments? Having Richard and Beliveau so high is the farthest thing from controversial.

I know there's a lot of people who say "modern hockey 4tw - today's players = bionic robots" and that crowd usually dismisses anything from before the 1970s. But assuming you're not part of that group - Beliveau/Richard so high kinda speaks for itself.

Winning a bunch of cups on a stacked team in a 6 team league shouldnt lock you in as a top 10 player.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

The reason Secondary Sid is Secondary Sid, is because people compare Secondary Sid's secondary assists to Ovechkin's goals and pretend they have the same value.

No player in the history of the game, except for Secondary Sid, has ever relied on secondary assists in order to be called the best player of their generation.

Considering Crosby is also better at producing primary points, I don't think that's rooted in reality

 

[Perfect_Drug]

The Big-4 to me is lead by Gretzky, but everyone who says Orr, Howe, or Lemieux as their #1 has a solid argument and it's difficult to settle or refute.

I'm far from being the biggest Crosby advocate, but he's clearly in the Jagr / Messier / Yzerman / Sakic/ Forsberg / Beliveau / Ovechkin yada yada tier.


That next group is just a giant blob of all-time great players anyone can argue or refute the ordering of.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

2 Debatable Smythes
Debatable that he's even been the best player of his era.

But he's a top 5.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

2 Debatable Smythes
Debatable that he's even been the best player of his era.

But he's a top 5.

Debatable top 5.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Considering Crosby is also better at producing primary points, I don't think that's rooted in reality

The reality is that Ovechkin has substantially more primary points than Sid in the same number of seasons.

And even then we're assuming primary assists are as valuable as goals, which they aren't.

 

[Midnight Judges]

2 Debatable Smythes
Debatable that he's even been the best player of his era.

But he's a top 5.

The first smythe is not debatable - Sid flat out did not deserve it.

The second one is debatable, but I think he did deserve it.

 

[Yackiberg8]

The reality is that Ovechkin has substantially more primary points than Sid in the same number of seasons.

And even then we're assuming primary assists are as valuable as goals, which they aren't.

Lol classic argument. The substantial total of 60 more primary points in 141 more games played?

I suppose you’re in the group that thinks Jagr was a better player than Lemieux as well because he has more points right.

 

[czechmate]

Lol classic argument. The substantial total of 60 more primary points in 141 more games played?

I suppose you’re in the group that thinks Jagr was a better player than Lemieux as well because he has more points right.

No.

Jagr's accomplishments however are more impressive than Crosby's.

 

[Yackiberg8]

No.

Jagr's accomplishments however are more impressive than Crosby's.

Sure they were...

Crosby has more individual awards despite missing out on what likely would’ve been TEN additional awards during his prime. Unfortunately he was injured but you can completely ignore those and he still has more.

Has a higher career PPG, higher PPG through each players first 14 seasons.

Plus he was a much better playoff performer.

Plus he was the best player of his generation.

The only argument for Jagr is that he has more total points due to playing for so long. If you think he is better than Crosby because of this then you also think he was the second best player ever and Messier was third best.

 

[Son Goku]

The first smythe is not debatable - Sid flat out did not deserve it.

The second one is debatable, but I think he did deserve it.

wrong on both accords

 

[Trade]

The reality is that Ovechkin has substantially more primary points than Sid in the same number of seasons.

And even then we're assuming primary assists are as valuable as goals, which they aren't.

notice he said seasons and not games.

 

[Dominance]

notice he said seasons and not games.

I agree with MJ, assists aren’t always worth the same as goals. The vast majority of Crosby’s assists are actually more valuable to the play than the goal that results. With consideration of the fact that we seem to be arbitrarily revaluing the point scoring system, I think it’s fair to give Crosby another ~500 for all of the tap-ins and glorious chances he gave brilliant players like Dupuis, Gibbons, Adams, etc. At the same time, let’s just go ahead and subtract ~500 from Ovechkin for all the one-timers and glorious chances he received from a “more valuable” part of the play from grinders like Backstrom and Kuznetsov.

I like this game.

 

[Future GOAT]

In 2011-2013 his ppgs was 1.61, 1.68 and 1.56. Now if you're saying that his ppg within those very seasons would go down in a full year - sure, that's sensible.

Indeed, that is exactly what I was saying. Kudos to you for understanding that without being petty and trying to minimize/marginalize it like some less mature Crosby fans would.

 

[The Big Unit]

Unfortunately injuries are what will stop Crosby from entering my top 5.

1. Gretzky (His stats are just silly)
2. Orr (He won the Hart 3 times, the Norris 8 times, the Art Ross 2 times, the Conn Smythe 2 times, and the Calder. A dman winning the Art Ross is crazy)
3. Lemiuex (Probably the most skilled player to ever lace them up)
4. Howe (The first power forward)
5. Jagr (The best European to ever play)

Jagr is 2nd in all time points and at his peak he was clearly the most dominant player in the NHL. Crosby never dominated the way Jagr did at his peak and many younger people never really got to see Jagr in the 90s and early 2000s when he was at his best.

Art Ross Trophy	5	1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Hart Memorial Trophy	1	1999
Lester B. Pearson Award	3	1999, 2000, 2006
Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy	1	2016

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Olympic gold medal in 1998 and bronze in 2006

While this is, of course, a very subjective topic I like to think of it this way; how good were they compared to their peers. All of the guys in my top 5 were head and shoulders better than everybody else. From 1981-2001 only three guys won the Art Ross. Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr. That's why they're top 5.

 

[czechmate]

Sure they were...

Crosby has more individual awards despite missing out on what likely would’ve been TEN additional awards during his prime. Unfortunately he was injured but you can completely ignore those and he still has more.

Has a higher career PPG, higher PPG through each players first 14 seasons.

Plus he was a much better playoff performer.

Plus he was the best player of his generation.

The only argument for Jagr is that he has more total points due to playing for so long. If you think he is better than Crosby because of this then you also think he was the second best player ever and Messier was third best.

1. Quantity is not always an indication for quality. Crosby has more individual awards (2), that is true. However purely adding up individual awards and then comparing them is just too simplistic. You need to differentiate here. Jagr managed to win 5 Art Rosses in an era with Gretzky, Lemieux, Selanne, Sakic, Forsberg, etc. - 4 of them consecutively. Crosby has 2, non-consecutive.

2. "Likely would've been". All of these points you're making are hypothetical assumptions. If Jagr hadn't played in the KHL for 3 seasons and if there hadn't been a lockout (2004-2005) and (2012-2013) he would almost certainly be the only player in NHL history besides Gretzky to pass the 2000 point mark. He would've also had a shot at breaking Gretzky's legendary goal record (894). All of this however is irrelevant, because its hypothetical. We can only discuss facts.

3. Jagr played way into his 40s. This obviously has an effect on career PPG. Why 14 seasons? Does your calculation not work when comparing 15 seasons, or when comparing 13 seasons?

4. I could agree with you on the playoff performance comparison.

5. Again, this is just a statement that you throw out there. You could easily find as many people on HF that would consider Ovechkin "the best player". So this statement cannot be as self-evident as you think it is.

6. There are many variables to look at, when comparing the careers of NHL legends; specifically Jagr. Why are you purely focusing on his points when there are several other points clearly separating him from Crosby too (Art Ross 5*; 3rd in goal scoring all time; etc.)?

Having read your post, I have the feeling that you are cherry picking certain facts and measures that best suit your personal point of view (agenda). Both are NHL legends but need to be compared carefully.

 

[Yackiberg8]

1. Quantity is not always an indication for quality. Crosby has more individual awards (2), that is true. However purely adding up individual awards and then comparing them is just too simplistic. You need to differentiate here. Jagr managed to win 5 Art Rosses in an era with Gretzky, Lemieux, Selanne, Sakic, Forsberg, etc. - 4 of them consecutively. Crosby has 2, non-consecutive.

2. "Likely would've been". All of these points you're making are hypothetical assumptions. If Jagr hadn't played in the KHL for 3 seasons and if there hadn't been a lockout (2004-2005) and (2012-2013) he would almost certainly be the only player in NHL history besides Gretzky to pass the 2000 point mark. He would've also had a shot at breaking Gretzky's legendary goal record (894). All of this however is irrelevant, because its hypothetical. We can only discuss facts.

3. Jagr played way into his 40s. This obviously has an effect on career PPG. Why 14 seasons? Does your calculation not work when comparing 15 seasons, or when comparing 13 seasons?

4. I could agree with you on the playoff performance comparison.

5. Again, this is just a statement that you throw out there. You could easily find as many people on HF that would consider Ovechkin "the best player". So this statement cannot be as self-evident as you think it is.

6. There are many variables to look at, when comparing the careers of NHL legends; specifically Jagr. Why are you purely focusing on his points when there are several other points clearly separating him from Crosby too (Art Ross 5*; 3rd in goal scoring all time; etc.)?

Having read your post, I have the feeling that you are cherry picking certain facts and measures that best suit your personal point of view (agenda). Both are NHL legends but need to be compared carefully.

1. He never beat out Lemieux or Gretzky for an Art Ross.
2. I said even though he missed 3 seasons in his prime where he would’ve cleaned up the awards quite easily he still has more than Jagr.
3. Crosby has played 14 seasons is the reason why. It is his entire career. If we compared careers it would look worse for Jagr due to him playing into his 40s.
4. Agreed.
5. Don’t see much of a case at all for Ovechkin.
6. I don’t think cumulative stats are the best way to compare players all time, otherwise like I said it means Jagr is second best, Messier third. You need some context. These points aren’t cherry picked, please explain how you would compare them.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Jagr & Crosby are both Legends and it’s debatable to who was greater. Both Top 5-10 All time.

 

[bobbyking]

Sid and Ovie are definitely in the top 10 all time. I think the opinions of the masses will catch up with this. Maybe when nostalgia kicks in for some of us?

For all the neat discussions, the history of hockey forum is a disaster and their rankings will not age well (to put it mildly). They think there are 5-7 players from the 1950's and 1960's who are all superior to the best players from the 2000's and 2010's. This, despite the talent pool having become international (not just Canada) and tripled, quadroupled, or more.

So the HoH forum would have you believe Canada 16M population put out way more high end talent than Canada 36M population.

Sounds far-fetched.

Now add in the USA, plus Europe, plus Russia (plus Canada population 36M).

Now it's mind-bogglingly stupid.

Very well put

 

[Yackiberg8]

Unfortunately injuries are what will stop Crosby from entering my top 5.

1. Gretzky (His stats are just silly)
2. Orr (He won the Hart 3 times, the Norris 8 times, the Art Ross 2 times, the Conn Smythe 2 times, and the Calder. A dman winning the Art Ross is crazy)
3. Lemiuex (Probably the most skilled player to ever lace them up)
4. Howe (The first power forward)
5. Jagr (The best European to ever play)

Jagr is 2nd in all time points and at his peak he was clearly the most dominant player in the NHL. Crosby never dominated the way Jagr did at his peak and many younger people never really got to see Jagr in the 90s and early 2000s when he was at his best.

Art Ross Trophy	5	1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Hart Memorial Trophy	1	1999
Lester B. Pearson Award	3	1999, 2000, 2006
Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy	1	2016

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Olympic gold medal in 1998 and bronze in 2006

While this is, of course, a very subjective topic I like to think of it this way; how good were they compared to their peers. All of the guys in my top 5 were head and shoulders better than everybody else. From 1981-2001 only three guys won the Art Ross. Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr. That's why they're top 5.

There is a direct correlation between seasons Mario Lemieux missed and seasons Jagr won the Art Ross.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Jagr really rounds out that top 5.

Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Howe
Jagr

 

[ted2019]

Please check this list for the top 100 players of all time. Thank you.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

 

[Yackiberg8]

Indeed, that is exactly what I was saying. Kudos to you for understanding that without being petty and trying to minimize/marginalize it like some less mature Crosby fans would.

It is not sensible to think that if Crosby played full seasons from 2010-13 that they would drop his career PPG, however.